Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 05:02:01 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V15 #258 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Tue, 29 Sep 92 Volume 15 : Issue 258 Today's Topics: Alan Bean Atlas E and F questions ( Actually Pershing missile) Clinton and Space Funding (2 msgs) Hypersonic test vehicle proposed (4 msgs) NEAR asteroid mission (but wait! There's more!) Self-genociding space colonies Space and Presidential Politics Space Life Sciences Training Program (NASA) Wealth in Space (Was Re: Clinton and Space Funding) Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to "space@isu.isunet.edu", and (un)subscription requests of the form "Subscribe Space " to one of these addresses: listserv@uga (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle (THENET), or space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 28 Sep 92 16:36:05 GMT From: Curtis Roelle Subject: Alan Bean Newsgroups: sci.space In 1984 I saw some examples of Alan Bean's art at a gathering of lunar astronauts, including Bean, "Buzz" Aldrin, Sen. Schmitt, and others, at the Air & Space Museum in Washington. The event was to commemorate the 15th anneversary of the first manned lunar landing. Bean said Eugene Cernan told him about a regret he had concerning his own lunar experience. Cernan had wished he would have inscribed his daughter's name in the lunar soil, but of course the astronauts were too busy. Bean then showed a painting of Cernan, in his red-striped commander's spacesuit, standing next to a large lunar boulder. In his and was a hammer or some other tool. On the boulder was written his daughter's name. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Sep 92 16:34:29 GMT From: Pat Subject: Atlas E and F questions ( Actually Pershing missile) Newsgroups: sci.space In article henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > >First, a correction: Scout is *not* a light rocket, it's an orbital >launcher at the extreme upper end of the sounding-rocket category. >It can be used as a super-heavy sounding rocket -- the user's manual >includes some information on this -- but it seldom is. > Okay, i knew the scouts were orbitals, i didn't know light implied unable to reach orbit, i was just referring to it's rather small payloads to leo. >The Pershings would probably make okay sounding rockets, if the treaty >language was suitable. (There are problems here, which is why the treaty >called for destruction and set time limits. A sounding rocket sitting in >a warehouse awaiting launch needs only a warhead and a launch truck to >become a weapon again.) But why bother? Sounding rockets are not that >hard to come by and it's a reasonably competitive market, I believe. > >Oh, if you let the Pershings go as government surplus at fire-sale prices, >they'd be cheaper than commercial sounding rockets. Of course, this has >a good chance of bankrupting some of the sounding-rocket companies by >flooding the market with government-subsidized competition. What happens >when you run out of Pershings and there's nobody left to provide ongoing >sounding-rocket service? You can devise safeguards against this, but it >gets tricky, and the existing companies will fight you tooth and nail in >Congress and in the courts. Is it worth the trouble? >-- Well, given that everyone is always bitching about the costs of flight/lb and given that this once in a blue moon chance came by i figured everyone would snap at the chance. i think the russians burned a bunch of ss-20's as sounding shots, so why not us. basically i figured we could take a bunch of electronics and other packages that people wanted to build and shoot them and get one big set of hardware launch qualified. if it works on top of a ss-20, it'll probably survive shuttle launch conditions, if it doesn't find out why not and not have to debug as much on rare and expensive shuttle missions.. is it worth the trouble? that's a management issue, but i would have thought some of the space groups would have proposed it. as for the sounding rocket companies. pay them to run the launches. then they get the profits from launch. set it up so that universities and non-profit get first crack and real good rates, everyone wins. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 19:37:48 GMT From: Nick Haines Subject: Clinton and Space Funding Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton In article <1992Sep25.135849.20626@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes: Let's see, ole Chris landed in the New World in 1492, the first viable colony landed in 1620. Apollo landed on the Moon in 1969. So we should expect private enterprise to land a commercial colony on the Moon about 2097. Let's call it New Plymouth. In the meantime, I guess we'll have to let the great navigators be funded by the government. The maps have to be filled in in those spaces that now say "Here there be dragons." Hold on, hold on. Weren't the Spanish getting large quantities of gold (etc) from the west coast of North America back in the 16th century, down El Camino Real to what is now Panama? Nick Haines nickh@cmu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:38:19 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Clinton and Space Funding Newsgroups: sci.space In article <6797@transfer.stratus.com> jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com writes: >> Well, we haven't visited Mercury or Pluto *yet*. > >Didn't one of the Mariner probes flyby Mercury? Mariner 10 was primarily a Mercury mission, in fact. It made three Mercury flybys after doing a Venus gravity-assist maneuver. -- There is nothing wrong with making | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 28 Sep 92 15:56:52 GMT From: "Robert B. Whitehurst" Subject: Hypersonic test vehicle proposed Newsgroups: sci.space In article jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes: >I saw an interesting article on p 27 of the September 14 AW&ST. > >Apparently Ames has proposed a Mach 10 class manned research aircraft as a >more conservative approach to building NASP. The idea would be to collect data >on hypersonic flight before trying to build a full orbital vehicle. > >The Hypersonic Air Launch Option (HALO) would be a piloted vehicle that would >be launched from an SR-71 at Mach 3 and 70,000 ft. It would use a LH2/LOX >rocket to reach Mach 9, then test variations on a scramjet engine at speeds up >to Mach 10-12. It would be designed to fly 50-100 flights over a period of >several years. > >Proponents say it is a more rational approach to building NASP and more >fiscally acceptable. Opponents say that it's an unnecessary sidetrack that >will delay NASP and end up costing more money. > >Personal Opinions: > I tend to agree with the proponents. I'm not sure if that's because it >sounds like better engineering technique or becuase I like the idea of stapling >a scramjet to the top of a Blackbird :-) I don't know enough about the current >state of the art in NASP technology to know if it's needed though. > ... >Josh Hopkins Of course I'm a solipsist - Isn't everybody? My worry is that, while it may give some useful data, the SR-71/HALO proposal would siphon $$ out of other necessary propulsion research. There is still an awful lot of research needed in the (non-black) propulsion program. Detailed diagnostics of the primitive flow variables associated with these combustors is spectacularly scarce, and the flying models they are proposing will not have the instrumentation necessary to get that detailed information. The prototype engines built to date (that I know of) have a lot of "seat of the pants" style engineering in them. That's not bad, but with the slim margins we'll likely have between success (technical and fiscal) and failure (anything from Challenger-style to just wretched efficiency), I'd like to see more detailed info. Of course, then there's possible black programs...who knows how long it will be before that data would be public. Then there's the possibility of losing a SR-71 mother ship, like the M-12 that got destroyed in the previous drone launches. They can say they won't lose another, but... -- Brad Whitehurst | Aerospace Research Lab rbw3q@Virginia.EDU | We like it hot...and fast. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Sep 92 16:44:39 GMT From: Pat Subject: Hypersonic test vehicle proposed Newsgroups: sci.space I saw something on the X-15 on the discovery channel last night. they were talking about the last flight of the A-2 which got burned up and retired. they said that budget constraints forced it's retirement not damage. it was damaged, but not totalled. also they siad that the damage was avoidable and that they could fix and work their way up to mach 8, maybe higher... so to test scramjet technology. maybe we should look at dusting off some of those. certainly cheaper then a whole new program,. maybe it's old, but it's paid for and with budgets so tight, we cant be picky. does anyone know what the Vmax for the X-15 was? what were the structural limits on the birds and engines? pat ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:37:07 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Hypersonic test vehicle proposed Newsgroups: sci.space In article PHARABOD@FRCPN11.IN2P3.FR writes: > Aurora > TSTO/XB-70 like aircraft (AW&ST, August 24, 1992) > X-30 (AW&ST, September 14, 1992) > HALO (AW&ST, September 14, 1992) > HL-20 > SSTO/DCX/DCY > others ? > >Could somebody on this list explain the differences between these >projects ? Okay, here's a quick rundown. There may or may not be something called Aurora. If so, it's secret and so is its performance. Same comments for AW&ST's spaceplane/B-70ish combination. The X-30 is/was a project to build a high-hypersonic aircraft ultimately capable of reaching orbit. It is dying because the pricetag for flight vehicles is too high. The project has done some useful work on things like high-temperature materials, which other projects may use. HALO is a *proposal* to build what is essentially an X-15 followon, a medium-hypersonic research aircraft launched from an SR-71. Most people like the idea (the prominent exception is the X-30 lobby), but it's still a paper project. No money, no commitment. The HL-20 is a small design study to build a lifting-body reentry craft which would be launched on an expendable booster, probably a Titan. Think of this as more or less an Apollo-capsule followon. Many people like the idea, and it has been studied in small ways, but there is no commitment to build it yet. DC-X is a suborbital (in fact subsonic) test vehicle now being built for the SSTO project. DC-Y would be the orbital prototype, not yet approved or funded. SSTO goes by at least one other set of initials depending on who you're talking to. It's aimed at building a one-stage fully-reusable space launcher, unlike the X-30 in that it is a wingless rocket-powered vehicle that takes off and lands vertically, also unlike the X-30 in that it is avoiding unnecessary new technology, and finally unlike the X-30 in that it should cost an order of magnitude less to find out if it works. -- There is nothing wrong with making | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 17:43:23 GMT From: Doug Mohney Subject: Hypersonic test vehicle proposed Newsgroups: sci.space In article , shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes: >And to tie this to another thread, I've just been made HL-20 Chief >Engineer at Dryden. Langley Research Center is the Lead Center for >HL-20, of course. Goodie. When ya going to bend metal? :-) Got any rough estimates for first flight? For that matter, is there a price tag on HL-20 yet? I know it's all been R&D money so far... Play in the intelluctual sandbox of Usenet -- > SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU < -- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 20:09:25 GMT From: Nick Haines Subject: NEAR asteroid mission (but wait! There's more!) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Sep27.004212.23425@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes: In article <1992Sep24.081212.1@fnala.fnal.gov> higgins@fnala.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes: >The fixed 1.5 m X-band dish allows (at 1 AU from Earth) 20.8 kbits/sec >using DSN's 34-meter ground stations, 83.8 kb/sec with the 70-m >dishes. Solid-state data recorder would hold 5E5 bits. (Now that I >look at my notes, that seems a bit small! Maybe I transcribed it >incorrectly. Think that 5 coulda been an 8?) Indeed, they'd be pulling a Magellan. :-) Unlike Magellan, they might not have the clout to get tons of DSN time, and would lose the data instead. 'Tis not a good thing to skimp on storage, especially in an era of many small missions, all competing for DSN time. 5E5 bits is only 64k, I can't believe that. 5e8 is more plausible, but at 64 megs might be more than they'd put in (me, I'd go for a gigabyte :->). Maybe 5e5 bytes (512k??) Nick ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 19:55:38 GMT From: Nick Haines Subject: Self-genociding space colonies Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1992Sep26.221253.18541@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes: [...] Perhaps, but technology has been decreasing the cost and increasing the effectiveness of birth control faster, and our expectations for our children rise as fast as the economy. For example, nowadays many middle class couples will delay having children until they can pay for their college; an extremely high expectation in historical and world-wide terms, but seemingly normal for us and probably sub-normal is a space colony; they will want their children to get PhD's. Alternatively maybe whoever ends up in space will have a more enlightened attitude to the benefits of government-financed education. Nick Haines nickh@cmu.edu ------------------------------ Date: 28 Sep 92 16:50:00 GMT From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov Subject: Space and Presidential Politics Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1469100016@igc.apc.org>, Mark Goodman writes... > >Reply-To: mwgoodman@igc.org > >This newsgroup has recently contained some rather absurd opinion >and speculation about the effect of a Clinton/Gore administration >on the space program. The simple facts are that neither party has >said much about what they would do and that the issue is rightly >peripheral to the campaign. Most reasonable people understand >this. Aiming to get the upper hand by describing anyone that does not agree with this post as unreasonable. Sometimes called and "Ad Hominim" attact. >I would like to comment on some of the more egregious >extrapolations that have been made. For example, Allen Sherzer >accuses Al Gore of being insufficiently enthusiastic about the >space program because his subcommittee (Science, Space, and >Technology) has not produced an authorization bill for NASA in >years. All the action in the Senate takes place in the full >committees, not the subcommittees, so this complaint is more >properly aimed at the full committee (Commerce, Science, and >Transportation) Chairman, Fritz Hollings. In fact, the real >action in the Senate is in the Appropriations subcommittee, where >Barbara Mikulski is the main player. Al Gore has consistently only supported only projects that either directly support his state or has pushed his obsolete Club of Rome environmentalist book sales. >Allen Sherzer has also complained that Clinton and Gore are >relying on the advice of space pundit John Pike, whom he accuses >of being skeptical (heaven forbid) about the prospects for SSTO >technology. Consorting with a known agnostic! I know John Pike, >and if he has a fault it is that he is too much of a space >enthusiast. I have read John Pike for years and he has never supported anything that NASA does that does not fit his political agenda >Others have followed the bizarre chain of logic that 1) Clinton >wants to spend a little bit of money on what appear to be sensible >things, 2) he will have to cut something else and 3) NASA is the >only game in town (ever hear of agricultural subsidies?), so 4) >Clinton will clobber NASA. Another chain of logic seems to go >like this 1) Clinton wants to cut military spending a tad more >than Bush does, 2) a lot of defense is aerospace, 3) NASA is >aerospace, so 4) Clinton wants to cut NASA. If anything the true >political logic works the other way: be kind to NASA so aerospace >doesn't suffer too much. SSTO is sensible. Inexpensive access to space is crucial to furthering the economic development of the United States in the 21st century. Look at the efforts that are taking place in Korea, Taiwan, China, and Japan. They seem to think it is very important to their future. >I can only conclude that if you care about space so much that you >would base your vote on the issue you have 1) little to go on and > >2) loose marbles. Get real! Space is not and should not be a big >issue in this Presidential election. The issues are how to >strengthen the economy and give people real opportunities to >improve their lot while reducing the deficit and the burden of the >national debt and healing the divisions in our society. Without >that, NASA is going nowhere. Only a prosperous and united society >will support space exploration. This is the same stupid argument that has been advanced since the early 1970's. You cannot strengthen the economy or give people real opportunities without a growing economy that is developing new industrial infrastructures. The status quo in established industries is far biased to supporting the current workforce and not rocking the boat. It is in new industries that opportinites have opened up such as in computers and the space industry. The undercurrent of the posters paragraph is that opression must be ended for minorities. We all agree to that. Fortunatly it is in the new 21st century industries relating to space where that will most fully be accomplished. As to reducing the deficit. Slick Willie's plans will enlarge the bread and circuses give aways, enslaving more and more poor minorites to the ultimate master of government. Have you never read history where that is what the Roman Senate did to control the people? The Slick Willie plan to "Help the Poor" is no more than a regurgitation of the government policies that have\ brought our republic to the edge of bankruptcy. There are currently 26 million people on public assistance. Would it not be better to create jobs and promote education by expanding man's presence into space rather than giving more and more away, thereby destroying what is left of initiative in this country by your taxes? > >So don't lose the forest for the trees. Vote on the big issues. >Vote for Bush and Quayle if you really believe that they are >better for the country as a whole (I certainly don't), but don't >vote on the basis of dimly defined space policies. We have not forgot anything. You are just looking at an old worn out forest that was planted by Franklin Delano Roosevelt fifty years ago. It is time that the forest that he planted was burned and replanted with one that will guide us for the next fifty years till our own needs to be changed. We believe space to be the big issue. Why? Because that is our future. The place where wealth will be created for individuals and nations in the next century. If your statement had been made a century and a half ago, it would have meant not expanding west till we were "prosperous and united". Hate to break the news to you bud, but that was not the case in America then. We still made it through that century and if we can get rid of the democratic dinosaurs we might make it through this one. It was said in 1936 by the Republican opposition to the rising tide of welfare that we were sacrificing our childrens future by adopting the pernicious doctrine of income redistribon. This prophesy has come to past in our financial crises of the 1990's. (And don't give us that tired lie of Regan defense buildup it does not wash) Give me a Fish and I eat for a Day. Teach me to Fish and I eat for a lifetime. Your party and your creed have forgotten this very simple and basic aphorism Slick Willie has lied to you and to our nation. Yes we will vote, and that vote will be for the future. >Mark W. Goodman Dennis Ray Wingo, University of Alabama in Huntsville ------------------------------ Date: 28 Sep 92 16:45:23 GMT From: SLSTP Subject: Space Life Sciences Training Program (NASA) Newsgroups: sci.engr.biomed,bionet.jobs,sci.bio,sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,misc.education,soc.college,sci.med ***** ANNOUNCEMENT OF OPPORTUNITY ***** American Undergraduates 1993 Space Life Sciences Training Program A Summer Program at the Kennedy Space Center, Florida Sponsored by NASA, Bionetics Corporation, Florida A&M University The Space Life Sciences Training Program (SLSTP) is an investment in tomorrow. It is an intensive six-week training program at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida for college students interested in Life Sciences, Pre-Medicine, Bioengineering or related fields. The program will allow students to participate in the conceptualization, preparation, preflight and postflight testing, data analysis, and report preparation phases of space flight experiments and NASA life sciences research. The program is scheduled for mid-June through the end of July 1993. After the successful completion of the program, five semester hours of tuition free college credit will be offered to each student through Florida A&M University, which is also responsible for program promotion, student recruitment, selection, travel, housing, program evaluation, and academic consultation. The purpose of SLSTP is to attract college students interested in research germane to the NASA field of Space Life Sciences. Participants will gain insight into how space life sciences flight experiments are conducted as well as explore future research opportunities in space life sciences. After completion of this program and subsequent professional training, the end result should be a pool of talented research scientists employed in universities, industries, and NASA with practical experience in the flight of life sciences experiments in space. The six week SLSTP curriculum will involve morning lectures by leading research scientists, managers, engineers, and astronauts from NASA Centers, distinguished universities, and industry. Tours of the KSC shuttle and payload facilities will provide students firsthand knowledge of the processes involved between arrival of a life sciences flight experiment at KSC and final integration of that experiment into the shuttle. In the afternoons, students will be actively involved in the planning and execution of experiments that span the range of life sciences research of current interest to NASA. These experiments have been chosen to provide the trainees with experience in as many aspects of flight experiment development as possible - from experiment conception and design to timeline development, protocol testing, and actual flight operations. Evening and weekend activities will be scheduled to include informal discussions with visiting lecturers and astronauts and work on special projects. The curriculum will emphasize the unique features of experiments conducted in the spaceflight environment which include weightlessness, space limitations, and issues of compatibility with other on-board experiment requirements. Some of the potential flight experiments in which the students may become involved include plant studies, animal development projects, human studies of sensory conflict, and environmental studies related to spaceflight. Student activities will include the opportunity to participate in development and testing of operational protocols, performance of ground based control experiments, direction, analysis, and evaluation of postflight testing sessions, as well as participation in the implementation of actual shuttle flight experiments when possible. Students will be divided into groups of 9 to 10 and work in a rotating schedule on each of the experiments, with opportunity for additional emphasis in at least one project. Students will receive round trip transportation between their home and the Orlando International Airport in Florida, free accommodations in the Cocoa Beach area near Kennedy Space Center, and local transportation to and from the space center. Students will also receive a daily meal allowance which should also cover other expenses. This program costs nothing to the student - there is no registration fee. ***** HOW TO APPLY ***** Student enrollment is limited to 36 to 40 currently enrolled undergraduate college students: -> Eligibility is limited to currently enrolled undergraduate students who are pursuing their first undergraduate degree. -> A minimum cumulative GPA of 3.00 or higher at the time of application is required. -> Graduating seniors (those students who complete their senior year prior to the start of the program in mid-June are not eligible to apply. Fourth year seniors going to their fifth year are eligible. -> Minimum age requirement is 16 years old -> United States citizenship is mandatory. There are no exceptions. -> Eligible majors include: Animal Sciences, Biochemistry, Biology, Biophysics, Biostatistics, Chemistry, Computer Science, Ecology, Engineering, Geology, Life Sciences, Mathematics, Pharmacy, Physics, Plant Sciences, Pre-Medicine, Psychology. If you have a question about the eligibility of your major, please call the program office at 904-599-3636. -> Previous SLSTP participants are NOT ELIGIBLE FOR A SECOND EXPERIENCE. Application materials include: -> A completed SLSTP Application form filled out in BLACK INK -> An official transcript from every college or university attended up to and including Fall 1992. Transcripts in the possession of the applicant will not be accepted. -> A SLSTP postcard on which you will write you address. It will be sent back to you when all of you application materials have been received in our office. -> A 500 word typed double spaced essay which will be used to evaluate the applicant's experience and written communication skills. The essay should relate to the classroom, laboratory and research experiences of the applicant in the sciences. Moreover, the career goals of the applicant should be concisely stated. Print you full name on each page of the essay. -> Three completed reference request forms from persons familiar with you academic record. This is very very important. Application requests should be sent to: Program Director, SLSTP Florida A&M University College of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences 106 Honor House Tallahassee, FL 32307 or call (904) 599-3636 The following application materials must be post-marked no later than January 31, 1993 and be sent to the same address. ALL necessary credentials must be on file before an application will be processed. Applicants will be notified of their acceptance or non-acceptance no later than March 31, 1993. This is a worthwhile experience. Most of the students that participate in SLSTP regard it best educational experience of their lives. If you have any interest in space, please apply. I was a student in 1990 and a staff member in 1992. If you have any questions regarding the program (that are not of an application nature), you can contact me at byaa741@hermes.chpc.utexas.edu For questions regarding the application, contact the program office. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 17:50:27 GMT From: Doug Mohney Subject: Wealth in Space (Was Re: Clinton and Space Funding) Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton In article <26SEP199221403772@judy.uh.edu>, wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes: >Nick, Nick, Nick, don't you ever read the reports about recently discovered >near Earth Asteroids? There is one of the found in 1987 (I forgot the >designator) that is confirmed by albedo and spectral studies to be nickel >iron, as are about 10% of all meteorites found on earth. The size of this >asteroid is about 1.7 miles by .8 miles. It was estimated in the >article that I read, that based upon similar fractions found in metorites on >the earth of that type, that there was approximately 90 billion dollars worth >of gold and 1 trillion dollars worth of Platinum, give or take a few million. That's before you bring it home. Actual price of gold and platinum on earth would drop, ASSUMING you can bring home the metals for a price less than or equal to the price of extracting them using current and near-term methods. Basic laws of supply and demand. More goods, prices drop. I dunno, maybe everyone could have gold-plated fixtures in their bathrooms? :) > From the day of the first contract >to the moving out to Pad 39, it was only five years for the first Apollo. >We can do it IF we have the will. If it is deemed necessary, sure. So far, it hasn't. Same reason why we haven't built powersats or space colonies or anything else up in the sky. No need. Play in the intelluctual sandbox of Usenet -- > SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU < -- ------------------------------ From: Gary Coffman Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: Lunar landing in 2002 Message-Id: <1992Sep28.124207.3862@ke4zv.uucp> Date: 28 Sep 92 12:42:07 GMT Article-I.D.: ke4zv.1992Sep28.124207.3862 References: <1992Sep24.105111.10555@dde.dk> <1992Sep26.151124.25081@ke4zv.uucp> <1992Sep26.235129.21728@techbook.com> Reply-To: Gary Coffman Organization: Gannett Technologies Group Lines: 60 Sender: news@CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU Source-Info: Sender is really isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU In article <1992Sep26.235129.21728@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes: >In article <1992Sep26.151124.25081@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes: >>...US private industry won't fund >>a return to the Moon because the results won't show up in their bottom >>lines in the less than six months timeframe that institutional investors >>will allow them for venture investments. > >This is silly socialist rhetoric. Chevron, among others, is planning >their oil operations in Siberia out beyond 2030 -- forty years. The >government rebudgets every year, with priority on pork that will get >the congresscritter reelected in two years. Which sector has >the longer term thinkers? Chevron, and other utilities and quasi-utilities do make long range investments, but the overall risks are low and well understood. When the risks of space exploitation reach similarly low and well understood levels, there won't be a problem with investor owned utilities working in space. Comsats have already reached that point. Chevron knows that the old J Paul Getty adage is true that drilling lots of wells will find oil. They've done it for a long time and have a solid track record. They know they can afford 10 dry holes for every well they hit because they have a firm understanding of the large return that one well will generate. Nowhere has anyone yet hit a gusher in space that justifies a lot of dry holes. Governments, though subject to year to year political infighting, can make long range high risk commitments since they aren't required to show a quarterly profit to their investors, the taxpayer. Even Chevron's long range plans are subject to political pressures both inside the corporation and outside the corporation. A new management team may decide to scrap old plans, or regulations or the political climate may change in ways that force the company to rethink their plans. It's really not that different from government operations except for the expectation of both short and long term profits. A company has to insure a continuing cash flow to carry it to the point where a long range investment starts to pay off. Thus they limit the amount of capital they will put at high risk and keep their long range investments either low risk or low cost or both to insure that the company won't be in trouble if they don't pan out as expected. Most space ventures aren't low risk or short term enough to meet with utility approval. Venture firms are different. They tend to bet the farm on one high risk idea. If it doesn't pan out, they fold. Therefore venture capitalists tend to only fund companies working in a "hot" area, and place demands on the company to generate a large return in a short time. Since most space exploitation projects don't have short timeframes on their returns, venture capitalists tend to avoid them. Only the government has both deep pockets and the ability to wait long periods for a high risk economic return. Governments must, however, have a quick and continuing *political* return. Basically that means grassroots support among the voters, and/or large political contributions from contractors. Thus government programs tend to be both Buck Rogers and expensive, fulfilling both objectives. The critical difference is that government at least *does* projects in space while private industry takes a less risky road of riding a government contract or investing only in safe established space activities like comsats. Gary ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 258 ------------------------------